Please support a diversion for flood protection of the Fargo-Moorhead and surrounding areas.  The Army Corps of Engineers has requested public comments and we have until June 22 to send them in.  Here are some reasons why the diversion is the only sure way to have control of the flooding in our area.  Please feel free to modify, delete, add, etc these points before sending them in.

We need a 100 plus year solution!  The only method of flood protection that is sure to work is a diversion around F-M and surrounding areas.  Please drop the study of all other methods and focus on the diversion.

The failure of floodwalls, dikes, dams this spring is proof that these methods will not protect us for the next 100 years.  We know this soil is very unstable and structures are damaged with the movement of the soil.  Dikes settle over time.  Rodents, humans, etc do damage to the structures.  All these can cause a catastrophic failure such as experienced by Grand Forks.  The Oak Grove High School damage was a result of the new flood wall failure.  From the Fargo Forum  “eroding Clausen Springs Dam near Kathryn” and “LaMoure County keeping an eye on eroding dam – with an eroding spillway”.   Homes have been destroyed because they were sliding into the river, the old Trollwood and Edgewood clubhouse were sliding into the river, roads, dikes, etc have been damaged by the unstable soil along the river.   Building anything 50 plus feet above the river bed and on the banks of the Red River is sure to fail at some point.

“It would be very difficult to fight floods larger than the 2009 flood.  Failure of emergency levees would be catastrophic.”  A total failure is estimated to cost 3 billion dollars. Corps of Engineers feasibility study of 2009

Even with permanent dikes, flood walls, etc we could have a failure, especially at the extreme predictions of possible heights projected for Fargo in the 2009 flood fight.  Our experience this year has made us realize that a flood over 45’ is possible.  In that case, F-M and surrounding area could suffer like Grand Forks did in 1997.

What will the height of the river be at 13 Avenue south if the river hits a flood stage of 43’ with the Main Avenue bridge acting like a dam?  Would that be 2’ to 4’ higher than the river on the north side of the bridge?  If so would the river level be 46’ at the water treatment plant and 42’ on the north side of the bridge?

The red river valley is full of ditches (drains).  The diversion would just be a bigger ditch.

We do not have to send all the water in the Red River around the towns.  At a flood level of maybe 25’, water could begin to flow into the diversion and maybe at 30’ the water flowing through the towns would equal the old flood of 40.82’.  The difference between a 40.82’ flood level and the flow rate at a 30’ flood level, would only require an area 20’ by 40’ to divert the water above the 30’ flood level if the speed is the same.

The 500 foot width projected for the bottom of the diversion by the Corps seems very wide.  A bottom width of about 50’ appears to be what would be required based on three times the flow between 30’ and 41’ flood levels and also a comparison to the original Winnipeg diversion which was built to handle 60,000 cubic feet per second.  The flow at Fargo was 29,100 cfs at 40.82’ this spring.  This would reduce the cost significantly and should give it a favorable cost benefit ratio.  The Winnipeg diversion is 30’ deep and we would expect this to be the best for F-M also.

The Winnipeg diversion has worked great.  In Fargo the river is about 100’ wide, in Winnipeg the river is about 450’ wide (nearly 5 times as wide).

Some information from Biot Report #392: August 26, 2006 about the Winnipeg expansion of the diversion after the 1997 flood which did not fail in that flood follows:  The diversion was widened to 350’ after the 1997 flood, but not deepened.  It increased the floodway capacity from 60,000 cfs to 140,000 cfs.  The original diversion cost in today’s dollars was $350 to $500 million.  The expansion involved replacing 12 bridges, two railroad crossings and excavation of 27 million cubic yards of earth.  It has been used to divert water in 20 of 37 years.

The North Dakota side may be better for political reasons.  It would offer better protection from overland flooding as this appears to be greater on the ND side of the river.  Starting at the Wild Rice River and going around West Fargo does appear to work just digging it either 20’ or 30’ deep all the way.  It should end way north of Harwood as the Corps proposed.

The diversion should start at the Wild Rice River as suggested by the Corps, but should be started on the west side of I29 and take all of the flow during a flood plus bring part of the Red River under I29 in the current Wild Rice river bed.  Looking at topographical maps for the area the water will flow from the Wild Rice at I29 and around West Fargo and north to the Red with no problems.  The crossing of the Sheyenne will require structures or controls to only allow a limited amount of water to go through West Fargo.  It may be best to use the West Fargo diversion and increase its capacity for the part around West Fargo. The area required for the flow under bridges should be approximately 50’ at bottom and 60’ at the top compared to the maybe 500’ needed to have gently sloping sides. The bridges do not need to be 500’.

The land can continue to be used for farming with alfalfa hay grown on the slopes if it is not used for water storage.  Winnipeg does this.

Property will have to be taken by eminent domain; either homes and land along the river and drains for levees, or farmland for the diversion.

Dikes, floodwalls, etc will raise the level of the river going through F-M and upstream.  As you force the water through a narrower space the water has no where else to go but up. Will that mean the river will be 6” or 2’ higher? The exact amount will depend on the narrowest spot, river height, flow rates etc.? Any extra height causes great concerns to all of us.

A diversion will lower the level through F-M and upstream.  The higher the water the more difficult it is to protect F-M and the greater risk of a catastrophic failure.  There is basically no chance of failure of a diversion.

A diversion would not add to the amount of water moving down the river at the north end of the diversion because the same amount of water flows by a given point.  But it would provide 30 miles of water holding capacity.

Dams and control structures within the diversion could be added to provide water for the dry years.  It could be filled from spring runoff.  If the other dams used for water storage were full, the diversion could be kept dry for that year.  This may eliminate the need for the project to bring water from the Garrison Dam to the F-M area.

The cost benefit ratio of the levee system was 1.1 for the $625 million dollar proposal and the diversion was shown at .65 which would equal $590 million.  How can the diversion have less total benefit?  It would cover a much greater area.  We could save many of the homes now being considered for destruction.  It would also save the view for many homeowners and therefore provide an economic benefit by the higher values.  The river frontage is the highest valued land for residential usage.  It would add value to the total length on both sides of the river.  Was the cost of maintaining and the repair and replacement of dikes, floodwalls, etc calculated in the cost benefit ratios?  The estimated 70 miles of protection F-M will require a lot of mowing, trimming, etc each year. Was the improved drainage for farmland along the diversion included?  The dikes, floodwall and such things are unsightly.  How was the possibility of failure to the levee system added to the benefit for the diversion?  A failure at 43’ plus would totally flood at least one city.  The National Guard would not be patrolling the levees and instant response teams will not be at the ready.   We would believe the diversion would be worth at least twice the benefit of the other systems.

Was the time lost at work and the extra costs and lost business (stores closed 6-8 days, MeritCare, nursing homes, etc evacuations, school shutdowns, loss of visitors and events, etc), considered in the cost benefit ratio?  How about the stress on all our people or the value of the ability for the area to grow?

Even at the Corps estimate of $909 million for the diversion, the $200 million Fargo is proposing for flood protection should cover its share.

The diversion should be selected immediately as the preferred method.  The funding could maybe use some stimulus money and other ways to shorten the funding and approval process.   If we did not have the Federal government involved in the contracts, the costs would be lower and we could use local contractors.

What if Devils Lake overflows and erodes the 18’ of sediment in the old channel from previous times.  This would most likely happen when we were experiencing flooding downstream so that it may also cause a failure of the Baldhill dam at Valley City.

If it only needs to be about 50 feet at the bottom and using some of these methods and suggestions, maybe it could be completed for $600 million.  This is about the same cost as the $660 million budget for the recent expansion of the Winnipeg diversion to handle a 700 year flood.

Like the flood fight this year our people will figure out how to get the job done.  If we only have a given amount of money we will figure out how to make the diversion a reality.

Now take action!

Send email using our form
Go to contacts and send your own email